Quote of the Day
The answer to that is based in the psyches of men for whom violence is a form of power, a means to force respect; who view guns as symbols of manhood, and manhood as requiring power over women. Machismo, male supremacy, guns, violence, power, and respect are all interlinked, so that, for such men, neither respect nor power nor manhood can be achieved without violence, and the use of violence against those—especially women, but also nonwhites and other minorities—over whom they demand power. (Without which, to complete the circle, they cannot truly be men.) And guns, with all their phallic force, are the best possible means.
Abigail R. Esman
July 6, 2023
The Most Egregious Case the Supreme Court Agreed to Hear Next Term
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
An opinion writer on Slate demonstrating Markley’ Law is unusual. I expect it as a matter of course in a Twitter debate. But an opinion writer doesn’t have to fall back on childish insults because they have lost the debate. She invokes it as part of her main arguments. That’s really demonstrating how weak their case is.
Other things to point out are:
- No apparent concern about constitutional law.
- No mention of why, if the defendant is so dangerous, which I’m inclined to believe he is, why he had not already been placed behind bars due to his crimes other than being a domestic abuser in possession of a gun.
- No apparent awareness criminals will continue to acquire firearms or substitute other weapons and commit violent crimes whether they are prohibited from owning a firearm or not. Only the physical removal of these thugs from public life can make the public safe.
But what do you expect from someone so ignorant, stupid, and or evil they insist gun ownership is an indicator of compensation for inadequate masculinity?
Like this:
Like Loading...
